October 10, 2011

Who gets to be the arbiter of gender roles in the church?

I'm looking forward to Rachel Held Evans' book based on a year-long project of following Scripture's instructions to women. Some with traditional views of biblical womanhood have criticized the book, even though it's not yet available. While I don't believe time travel is possible yet, some critics have brought up arguments that are common when defending traditional gender roles:

No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics.

A Baptist Press articleI've previously linked to notes, "Today's young men need to hear the words of King David to Solomon, 'Be strong, and show yourself a man,' (1 Kings 2:2) and today's young women need a generation of modern-day Abigails to emulate (1 Samuel 25)."

The article also refers to John Piper, who says a godly man is "sensitive to cultural expressions of what is considered masculine, and mature masculinity adapts its behavior to fit what is culturally masculine." It's clear most complementarians acknowledge that Scripture must be translated to our current setting.

However, why do many Christians feel they have a copyright on what these modern cultural expressions look like? How can they have so much certainty when defining gender roles?

For instance, Al Mohler unequivocally stated, "Those who believe that the Bible is indeed the inerrant and infallible written revelation of God are obligated to perpetuate and honor the pattern of leadership ordered within the text of Scripture." And the Unlocking Femininity website states, "Because God is good and only does good, if we believe that hierarchy and patriarchy are evil, then we’re saying something about the character of God."

Complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, so to question them is tantamount to questioning the Bible and God's goodness. Interestingly, it is exclusively male denominational leadership, seminary graduates, and pastors who determine these non-negotiable gender roles for the North American church.

I wonder whether there has been thorough reflection on biblical definitions of gender roles translated into today's terms. I wonder whether North American cultural norms have been uncritically adopted, which then gets clothed in biblical language, immune from criticism as it's been equated with Scripture itself.

Perhaps holding up a sign at your town's entrance that praises your husband is not required of Christian women today. I doubt that is Evans' point. Hardly anyone thinks we should literally follow every biblical command to women, i.e. wearing headcoverings during prayer or being saved through childbearing.

The question then becomes, what does the role of biblical women and men look like in 2011 in North America? And who in the church gets to decide these roles?

Learning about non-North Americans has revealed gender as a cultural construct. Biology still plays a role, but what is considered feminine here is often not the case outside North America.

I've shared details before from ethnographic studies. Among the Mur­ik of Papua New Guinea, women and men are allowed to show aggression. Generally, Indonesian men are viewed as emotional and full of passion. Women are thought to be more stable, rational thinkers who handle business transactions.

Looking briefly outside our North American context, we learn there is no one, universal definition of gender roles. Biblical womanhood is expressed differently, depending on the church's cultural context. Allowing husbands a "trump card" and barring women from leading men may seem absurd in some non-North American cultures.

Although not all complementarians would agree, Mark Driscoll has said Paul's instructions resulted from women being "unfit," "more gullible and easier to deceive than men." Driscoll also frequently describes women as emotional.

Or, when North American Christians oppose anti-bullying measures because they eliminate gender roles, these Christians fail to explain why certain characteristics are male and others female, and to ground this explanation beyond our particular culture's assumptions about gender.

I know a culture-less reading of Scripture isn't possible. But perhaps we should more thoroughly look at how and why women and men appear to be different in our culture, and why they should act certain ways to be good Christians. Perhaps the church should stop painting women and men with such broad brushstrokes.

Rather than marginalizing those who do not fit the North American mold of femininity and masculinity and who have not conformed to particular roles, could the church community make room for them? As Joy Bennett wrote in a great post over at Deeper Story, "just because a woman's strengths don't fit the typical female patterns doesn't mean she doesn't fit into the body of Christ."

I wish the church would take a closer look at our definitions of masculinity and femininity. Are they informed more by North American culture than anything else? Humility on all sides would also be helpful, as it's pretty bold to think your interpretation of gender roles is precisely what God commanded, and questioning this interpretation disrespects the Bible and God's character.

I am left scratching my head when biblical gender roles just happen to match up with traditional twentieth-century North American gender roles, and that one exclusive group has decided to be the arbiter of these roles. Let's take a closer look (and stop reviewing books before reading them), shall we?

Rachel has apparently made little (if any) effort to figure out what the various commands she is supposedly implementing actually meant. No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics. I will not be surprised if a number of people come away with their preconceptions confirmed about what an "outdated" book the Bible is -- and yet, what they will have read is probably not a serious analysis of the questions under consideration.

5 Comments

Natalie -
Scot McKnight is quoted in a video from last year, "If everything is the Gospel then nothing is the Gospel." This quote comes to mind every time I hear someone tie their cause celeb with an all or nothing statement about the Gospel Good News of Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

McKnight also invokes Nietzsche who wrote something to the effect that the text gets lost in the interpretation.

It makes sense you would think of Nietzsche, because the cultural relativism that resulted from early anthropology is sort of seen as the beginnings of postmodernism. I've only read Beyond Good and Evil, which questions "objective truth." I suppose that's what I'm doing here in the context of gender, yet I would hope my ideas aren't as nihilistic. Knowledge and purpose of the Gospel are still possible, they're just culturally rooted and don't only come from those in power.

Anyway, I like that McKnight Gospel quote. Can't wait to check out his new book.

What I find most fascinating (and surprising) is that it was found that conservative women get up in up in arms about needing to limit women's role in church more so than men. Sorry, I can't remember where the info is from (whether from a Barna survey or somewhere else).

One of my favorite books on this topic is "Finally Feminist." - it covers how the two views interpret the major texts and explores the strengths and weakness of both. In the end the author concludes that we should work to get rid of all differences that have no basis in reality (acknowledging that working through true differences, and cultural constructs is very difficult - which should mean that the church is a place that allows a lot of room for different perspectives).

Also, I wouldn't get concerned with being nihilistic, especially when being compared to Nietzsche. He wasn't nihilistic, he greatly feared nihilism, which he saw as one of the possible results of the world not believing in a god anymore. He wasn't so interested in whether or not god existed - he was more of a pragmatist. His response to there possibly not being a god was not, "now we can do whatever we want", but "since morality may be up to us, it is a weighty task that must be taken very seriously." I think the thought process that begin with people like Nietzsche was the beginning of a healthly humbling of the enlightenment's unhealthy level of certainty. Maybe you agree? I'd like to hear you thoughts on it.

Hi Ben!
I've heard that before too, that women are often the most active participants and supporters of patriarchy. I googled Finally Feminist and it definitely looks like something I would want to check out.

I've only read one work by Nietzsche, and it was 7-8 years ago in college, so my fuzzy memory is probably why I thought he was more nihilistic. But yes, I do see him and others that he later influenced (Foucault, Derrida, etc) as a helpful, healthy critique of enlightenment certainty.

I HAVE read Rollins! How (Not) to Speak of God and at least one other book whose name I can't remember at the moment. He's challenging. His new book is on my winter break reading list, for sure. I'm assuming you've read his stuff?